Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Rosemary Woods was not involved in this document production. In motion practice over the adequacy of a production, the Plaintiffs were able to show that the Producing Party did not produce 18 email messages that were produced by a third-party. As such, the Plaintiff sought production of search efficiency reports[…]
Read moreOne lesson from United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, is that maybe you should take depositions of key parties and use interrogatories to find out relevant information to your case before asking for over 40,000 records that contain the personal information of unrelated third-parties to a lawsuit. The[…]
Read moreYou know someone is taking a hit when a judge works in references to Pink Floyd’s “Sorrow” and Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sounds of Silence.” Sound the Division Bell, because there is a Bridge Over Troubled Water. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman did exactly that in Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35225[…]
Read moreYou know someone is taking a hit when a judge works in references to Pink Floyd’s “Sorrow” and Simon and Garfunkel’s “Sounds of Silence.” Sound the Division Bell, because there is a Bridge Over Troubled Water. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman did exactly that in Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35225[…]
Read moreJudge William Orrick summed up a basic truth of eDiscovery: In the age of electronically-stored information (“ESI”), production of all relevant, not privileged and reasonably accessible documents in a company’s custody and control is easier said than done. Banas v. Volcano Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144139, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct.[…]
Read moreThere are attorneys who believe the most effective Rule 26(f) meet and confer is simply meeting at dawn with dueling pistols. The parties in Procongps, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC, fought over proclaimed inadequate productions, failures to adequately meet and confer and the defensibility of their productions. Procongps, Inc. v. Skypatrol,[…]
Read moreI am gonna to hit the brakes, he’ll fly right by me. Maverick, Top Gun You’re gonna do what? Merlin, Top Gun Attorneys feel compelled by their duty of competency to their clients to have eyes on every document that might be privileged. Given cases such as J-M Manufacturing it[…]
Read more2012 eDiscovery Case Law included everything from Tweets to Computer-Assisted Review. However, there was also a very basic theme that is hard to ignore: Cases should be about the merits. And for cases to be decided on the merits, attorneys need to educate themselves on electronic discovery so they know[…]
Read moreA court should be hesitant to resolve issues that demand technical expertise. Magistrate Judge James C Francis IV In a case with dueling motions to compel, the parties disputed the adequacy of search terms. Magistrate Judge James C Francis IV wrote a profoundly important warning to attorneys and judges on[…]
Read moreA Producing Party (the Defendant) argued against searching for responsive electronically stored information, claiming “that the mere fact an employee might have discoverable information or relevant knowledge does not necessarily mean she possesses relevant documents.” McNearney v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108386, 14-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug.[…]
Read more